VIJAY SURESH JADHAV Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the sole accused under Sec. 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Cr.P.C .', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.100/2022 of Marihal Police Station, Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 376 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ' IPC ', for brevity) and Ss. 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act', for brevity).

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that, respondent No.2, who is working as the Supervisor of Anganwadi in Belagavi Rural, has lodged the complaint stating that, on 9/6/2022, she received a phone call from unknown person that one minor girl, aged 17 years, resident of Kambaar Galli, Sulebhavi village, marriage was being performed and she along with other officials informed Marihal Police and visited the spot and rescued the victim girl and produced before the District Child Welfare Committee and the Committee enquired her in detail and sent her to the Child Home, Savadatti. After her medical examination, they revealed that, she was pregnant and again she was sent before the Committee on 15/6/2022 and she was enquired, at that time, she revealed that her marriage was fixed with the petitioner/accused and he committed sexual intercourse on her on 3/5/2022 and because of that she became pregnant. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.100/2022 of Marihal Police Station, Belagavi for the offences under Sec. 376 of IPC and Ss. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner/accused came to be arrested on 11/7/2022 and he is in judicial custody. The police recorded the statement of the victim girl and the statement of the victim girl under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.1067/2022 and the same came to be rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-FTSC-1, Belagavi by order dtd. 23/8/2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State. Respondent No.2 had appeared physically on the previous date and prayed not to grant bail to the petitioner.